Men and women really are *much* more alike psychologically than different but we notice subtle differences more than we notice similarities which we just take for granted.
-
-
Yes, so I'm curious how he proves anything about different distributions between m & f without even showing which variable he's talking about.
-
Well, its a lot more than just the chart. That (I think) was just to show the difference between how people imagine gender - two distinct lines - and how it actually is - overlapping hugely.
-
It's NOT a lot more than just the chart. It was not even an actual chart. It was a drawing of a chart. Is it how people do science these days? You just make a claim, draw a mock chart, expect the reader to imagine the rest and accept the conclusion? Something's missing here.
-
Yes, a lot more. Here it is. Follow links. https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ … The diagram was an illustration of the error in understanding populations. It was a memo on a forum for discussing diversity issues, not a scientific paper (tho it cited several).
-
Meta analysis says the gender diff on ability is almost nil.
-
Yep, its interest which differs. This has been known for some time. You can see it in schools.
-
Damore's overall point was that gender imbalances in tech might be the result of several factors, differing m/f interests being the most concrete, and that concentrating on systemic sexism as the one-and-only possible cause was therefore never going to work.
-
So, of the three factors - ability, motivation, opportunity - is it only motivation damore says is causing disparity in career choice? Does this theory also apply to disparity among different races? google has a CS programs for teens/youths. that's not just focusing on sexism.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.